36 Convention as a whole, and Article 5 in particular, that individuals be treated with dignity and 119 respect. 141. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court has established that the victim’s family members may themselves be affected by the violation of their right to psychological and moral integrity.120 In this way, the Inter-American Court has considered that the right to psychological and moral integrity of the victim’s family may be violated, due to the additional suffering that they have experienced as a result of the particular circumstances related to the violations committed against their loved ones121 and caused by acts and omissions of State authorities with regard to the events that occurred.122 142. In the present case, the petitioners state that more than 11 years since the events occurred, the torture to which Mr. Quispealaya was subjected has caused him an irreversible visual disability that has impacted his personal and family life, and has constituted an obstacle for him to find a stable job in order to provide for his basic needs and those of his families, and that Mr. Quispealaya has been able to survive due to the support of his elderly mother. 143. The Commission notes that Mr. Quispealaya’s mother, Victoria Vilcapoma Taquia, traed to meet with military officers to find out her son’s state of health once noncommissioned officer Technician Muquiyita told her that the Army had granted him medical leave, and that it was Ms. Victoria Vilcapoma who presented the complaint to the Provincial Public Prosecutor of Huancayo on February 28, 2002 for the torture that her son had suffered. Similarly, the case file before the Commission indicates that on November 25, 2002, Ms. Vilcapoma Taquia requested a restraining order because she feared for her life and that of her family, given that the noncommissioned Army officer who had assaulted her son and against whom a complaint for torture had been filed was seen around her house. Nevertheless, no response was received, nor were any measures adopted to this end. 144. Additionally, the Commission has concluded in the present case that the State violated Mr. Quispealaya Vilcapoma’s right to personal integrity, as well as his right to judicial guarantees and to an effective judicial remedy, based on the lack of an effective investigation of the facts within a reasonable time period. 145. Consequently, the Commission considers that these circumstances generate suffering, anguish, insecurity, frustration and impotence of family members before the State authorities,123 and it 119 IACHR. Report No. 38/00, Case 11.743, Merits, Rudolph Baptiste, Grenada, 13 April 2000, para. 89. 120 I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 7 June 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 101; Case of the Massacre of Dos Erres V. Guatemala. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 24 November 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 206, Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 12 August 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 163. 121 I/A Ct. H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 November 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 335; Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 26 September 2006. Series C No. 155., para. 96; Case of Goiburú y otros V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 22 September 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 96. 122 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparaciones. Judgment of 26 May 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 195. 123 I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of 25 November 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 160; I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Cantoral Benavides V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of 18 August 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 105; y I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Durand y Ugarte V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of 16 August 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 128.